MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213241976 · doi:10.1109/ms.2021.3133805

AI-Driven Development Is Here: Should You Worry?

2022· article· en· W4213241976 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Ernst, Gabriele Bavota

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Software · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryComputer scienceSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringSoftwarePsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Intelligence Driven Development Environments (AIDEs) integrate the power of modern AI into IDEs like Visual Studio Code and JetBrains IntelliJ. By leveraging massive language models and the plethora of openly available source code, AIDEs promise to automate many of the obvious, routine tasks in programming. At the same time, AIDEs come with new challenges to think about, such as bias, legal compliance, security vulnerabilities, and their impact on learn programming.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.032
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0130.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.014

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE SoftwareSame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207